Title Catholicos

[Little Boy Lost]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Dear brother Vico,


What makes you say that?

I know that St. Mary's Coptic Catholic Church in L.A. is under the direct omophor of HB Antonios Naguib. If local parishes can be under the direct jurisdiction of a Patriarch outside of that territory, why should not bishops?

Blessings,
Marduk

Why is the Romanian Eparch Botean not directly under the Romanian Church than? I keep hearing he is under the Pope and not the Romanian Metropolitan.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Dear brother Vico,


What makes you say that?

I know that St. Mary's Coptic Catholic Church in L.A. is under the direct omophor of HB Antonios Naguib. If local parishes can be under the direct jurisdiction of a Patriarch outside of that territory, why should not bishops?

Blessings,
Marduk

What I am referring to is from the easten canon law. Each non-titular bishop has one eparchy/exarchy/ordnariate jurisdiction.

CCEO Canon 150

1. Bishops constituted outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church have all the synodal rights and obligations of the other bishops of the same Church with due regard for can. 102, 2.

2. Laws enacted by the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and promulgated by the patriarch, if they are liturgical, have the force of law everywhere in the world; if, however, they are disciplinary laws or concern other decisions of the synod, they have the force of law inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church.

3. Eparchial bishops constituted outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church, who desire to do so, can attribute the force of law to disciplinary laws and other synodal decisions in their own eparchies, provided they do not exceed their competence; if however these laws or decisions are approved by the Apostolic See, they have the force of law everywhere in the world.

CCEO 102

2. With regard to eparchial bishops constituted outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church and titular bishops, particular law can restrict their deliberative vote, with due regard for the canons concerning the election of the patriarch, bishops and candidates for office mentioned in can. 149.

CCEO
P.
Canon 78.2. The power of the patriarch is exercised validly only inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church unless the nature of the matter or the common or particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff establishes otherwise.
Canon 79 The patriarch represents the patriarchal Church in all its juridic affairs.
Canon 102.2. With regard to eparchial bishops constituted outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church and titular bishops, particular law can restrict their deliberative vote, with due regard for the canons concerning the election of the patriarch, bishops and candidates for office mentioned in can. 149.
Canon 133.2. The metropolitan represents the province in all juridic matters of the same.
M.A.
Canon 152 What is stated in common law concerning patriarchal Churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter.
M.
Canon 157.2. The power of the metropolitan and the council of hierarchs is validly exercised only within the territorial boundaries of the metropolitan Church sui iuris.
Canon 157.3. The metropolitan represents the metropolitan Church sui iuris in all its juridic affairs.
Other
Canon 174 A Church sui iuris, which is neither patriarchal, major archiepiscopal nor metropolitan is entrusted to a hierarch who presides over it according to the norm of common law and particular law established by the Roman Pontiff.
E.
Canon 190 The eparchial bishop represents the eparchy in all its juridic affairs.

[mardukm]

Dear brother Little Boy Lost,

Originally Posted by Little Boy Lost

Why is the Romanian Eparch Botean not directly under the Romanian Church than? I keep hearing he is under the Pope and not the Romanian Metropolitan.

Is the Romanian Catholic Church a sui juris Patriarchal Church? If not, he would properly be considered under the omophor of the Pope.

This post I gave in another thread might help:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....1&postcount=13

Blessings,
Marduk

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

I'm not sure what sections of the canons you gave supports your original statement that a bishop of a patriarchal sui juris Church is not under the direct omophor of his Patriarch, even if that bishop is outside the traditional territory of the patriarchate.

At best, I see that a bishop of a patriarchal sui juris Church who is outside the patriarchal territory may have his voting rights restricted by particular law. That is far from saying that such a bishop is not under the direct omophor of his Patriarch.

Blessings,
Marduk

[Vico]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Dear brother Vico,

I'm not sure what sections of the canons you gave supports your original statement that a bishop of a patriarchal sui juris Church is not under the direct omophor of his Patriarch, even if that bishop is outside the traditional territory of the patriarchate.

At best, I see that a bishop of a patriarchal sui juris Church who is outside the patriarchal territory may have his voting rights restricted by particular law. That is far from saying that such a bishop is not under the direct omophor of his Patriarch.

Blessings,
Marduk

Particularly 150.2, but also read my opening remark, that I did not provide canons for. The issue is jurisdiction outside of the territory of the Patriarchal, Major Archepiscopal, or Metropolitan Church sui iuris. The bishops have one jurisdiction, for example the Byzantine Metropolitan Archeparch of Pittsburgh has the personal jurisdiction over the Archeparchy but not over Passaic or Parma or Phoenix. That would be the case if an Archbishop's jurisdiciton were a territory with Auxillary bishops for regions within it. But they do represent their Church sui iuris juridically. The word omophor is not defined in CCEO so I do not know how to relate it here.

CCEO 150.2. Laws enacted by the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and promulgated by the patriarch, if they are liturgical, have the force of law everywhere in the world; if, however, they are disciplinary laws or concern other decisions of the synod, they have the force of law inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church.

Also:

CCEO Canon 134
1. The dignity of a metropolitan is always attached to a determined eparchial see.
2. A metropolitan in his own eparchy has the same rights and obligations as an eparchial bishop.


Have you not heard of the appeals to the Holy See to allow the heads of the eastern Churches have jurisdiction outside their ancient territories, and also for missionary works which are controlled by the Holy See?

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

Originally Posted by Vico

Particularly 150.2, but also read my opening remark, that I did not provide canons for. The issue is jurisdiction outside of the territory of the Patriarchal, Major Archepiscopal, or Metropolitan Church sui iuris. The bishops have one jurisdiction, for example the Byzantine Metropolitan Archeparch of Pittsburgh has the personal jurisdiction over the Archeparchy but not over Passaic or Parma or Phoenix. That would be the case if an Archbishop's jurisdiciton were a territory with Auxillary bishops for regions within it. But they do represent their Church sui iuris juridically. The word omophor is not defined in CCEO so I do not know how to relate it here.

CCEO 150.2. Laws enacted by the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and promulgated by the patriarch, if they are liturgical, have the force of law everywhere in the world; if, however, they are disciplinary laws or concern other decisions of the synod, they have the force of law inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church.

I understand what you are getting at. However, from my understanding, whether or not the particular law of a Patriarchal Church extends beyond its territorial boundaries is a completely different issue from whether or not a bishop of a sui juris Church is directly answerable to his head bishop. I don't see the canons you have quoted as being applicable to the latter matter. A Melkite bishop anywhere in the world is directly answerable to the Melkite Patriarch and his Synod. A Ukranian Catholic bishop anywhere in the world is directly answerable to the Major Archbishop of the UGCC and his Synod. Etc. I believe Canon 78 accounts for this:
"The power of the patriarch is exercised validly only inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church unless the nature of the matter...establishes otherwise."

A Patriarch naturally has jurisdiction over all the bishops, priests and faithful that are members of his Church. Canon 82 gives a list of things that a Patriarch can do by right with regards to members of his Church.

CCEO Canon 134
1. The dignity of a metropolitan is always attached to a determined eparchial see.
2. A metropolitan in his own eparchy has the same rights and obligations as an eparchial bishop.

I'm not sure I understand your attachment of this canon to the issue at hand. Every bishop only has jurisdiction in a certain territory or over a certain group of people. That has been the ecclesiastical reality of the Church from the very beginning.

Have you not heard of the appeals to the Holy See to allow the heads of the eastern Churches have jurisdiction outside their ancient territories,

Eastern and Oriental hierarchs already have jurisdiction outside their traditional territorial boundaries. True enough, it is not territorial jurisdiction, but rather personal jurisdiction - i.e., over members of their own Church. The only thing I am thinking that the bishops of the Middle East Synod could possibly be referring to in their request to extend their authority to the diaspora is with regards to establishing new jurisdictions. Currently, it is the Pope that does this for us, after the request of the local community through our hierarchs.

Can anyone think of anything else the bishops of the Middle East conference might be thinking of with regards to extending their authority into the diaspora?

Note: the issue of married priests is a non-answer. Our hierarchs already have the authority to do so because the Bulls forbidding married clergy was not an absolute bar, but made the restriction dependant on the condition of the times. Our bishops simply have to exercise their rights on the matter (and a few have been strong enough to do so). Trepidation may come from the possible reaction of local Latin bishops, after which appeals to the Pope will ensue. Requests from our hierarchs for the Pope's sanction to do this should not be seen as granting them an authority they do not have (since they already have it), but should simply be regarded as the most expedient means to promote the peace of the Churches in the face of possible conflicts with local Latin hierarchs.

and also for missionary works which are controlled by the Holy See?

I've never seen evidence that the Pope has ever restricted Eastern and Oriental Catholic missionary work. At best, the historic opposition has come from local Latin authorities (whether secular or religious). Perhaps curial congregations have done this, but I'd like to see some documentary proof.

Blessings,
Marduk

[malphono]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Eastern and Oriental hierarchs already have jurisdiction outside their traditional territorial boundaries. True enough, it is not territorial jurisdiction, but rather personal jurisdiction - i.e., over members of their own Church. The only thing I am thinking that the bishops of the Middle East Synod could possibly be referring to in their request to extend their authority to the diaspora is with regards to establishing new jurisdictions. Currently, it is the Pope that does this for us, after the request of the local community through our hierarchs.

Can anyone think of anything else the bishops of the Middle East conference might be thinking of with regards to extending their authority into the diaspora?

Actually, Vico is, unfortunately, correct: Patriarchal & Synodal authority is, with the exception of liturgy, limited to the Patriarchal Territories.

For example, let's say an established EC/OC Eparchial See in the diaspora becomes vacant. The Synod does not have the right to name a new eparch. They submit their recommendation (the "three names") to Rome. Normally, Rome accepts the recommended candidate but it can (and occasionally has) reject it for any number of reasons. If that happens, the process starts over again, and if Rome is not satisfied it can, at any point in the process, assign a bishop on its own. Similarly, if a Synod elects a new bishop from the diaspora, the candidate must be approved by Rome. The Synod cannot ordain him on its own authority.

Originally Posted by mardukm

Note: the issue of married priests is a non-answer. Our hierarchs already have the authority to do so because the Bulls forbidding married clergy was not an absolute bar, but made the restriction dependant on the condition of the times. Our bishops simply have to exercise their rights on the matter (and a few have been strong enough to do so). Trepidation may come from the possible reaction of local Latin bishops, after which appeals to the Pope will ensue. Requests from our hierarchs for the Pope's sanction to do this should not be seen as granting them an authority they do not have (since they already have it), but should simply be regarded as the most expedient means to promote the peace of the Churches in the face of possible conflicts with local Latin hierarchs.

No. Even though some bishops have found quasi-loopholes, and at least one other has directly defied it, the infamous Cum data fuerit is alive and well.

[Vico]

Marduk,

1. Do you mean liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties for the word "answerable"?


2. From the Special Assembly For The Middle East Oct 2010:

PROPOSITIO 18
THE JURISDICTION OF PATRIARCHS
Outside of the patriarchal territory, in order to maintain the communion of the Eastern faithful with their patriarchal Churches and to provide them with appropriate pastoral service, it is desirable to study the question of extending the jurisdiction of the Eastern Patriarchs to cover members of their Churches wherever they live throughout the world, with a view to taking appropriate measures.

PROPOSITIO 19
THE SITUATION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL IN THE GULF COUNTRIES
In a spirit of communion and for the good of the faithful, it would be desirable to form a
commission bringing together the representatives of the relevant dicasteries, the apostolic vicars of the region and the representatives of the sui iuris Churches concerned. This commission would be responsible for studying the situation of the Catholic faithful in the Gulf countries, including the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and suggesting solutions to the Holy See which it deems helpful for the promotion of pastoral action.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/...se/b25_02.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/sy...nali-mo_en.pdf

[Alexander Roman]

Perhaps the Vatican can review its canon laws with respect to these matters with the EC Churches and come to a resolution that better respects the EC Churches and their traditions.

This would go much further by way of ecumenical outreach than the Vatican's penchant for politicking with the Moscow Patriarchate behind the backs of EC's.

Alex

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Originally Posted by malphono

Actually, Vico is, unfortunately, correct: Patriarchal & Synodal authority is, with the exception of liturgy, limited to the Patriarchal Territories.

I agree it is limited, but I disagree that it is limited ONLY to the Liturgy. Though a Patriarch's authority does not extend geographically, they do extend to persons who are members of his Church, no matter where they are. Canon 150, section 2, quoted by brother Vico earlier merely and only establishes a limit on the territorial jurisdiction of a Patriarch. It does not place a limit on his personal jurisdiction over members of his Church, no matter where they are.

I am certain of this because the provision is contained in the very same Canon 150 -- section 3. It states that the laws of the Patriarch can obtain force in an eparchy of his own Church that is constituted outside the territorial boundary. This assumes that one is aware that outside the traditional territory of a non-Latin Patriarchate, jurisdiction is personal, not territorial.

For example, let's say an established EC/OC Eparchial See in the diaspora becomes vacant. The Synod does not have the right to name a new eparch. They submit their recommendation (the "three names") to Rome. Normally, Rome accepts the recommended candidate but it can (and occasionally has) reject it for any number of reasons. If that happens, the process starts over again, and if Rome is not satisfied it can, at any point in the process, assign a bishop on its own.

To be perfectly concise, the Synod also has the prerogative to reject the candidate nominated by the Pope (in the case that the Pope rejects the three canidates proffered by the Synod).

Similarly, if a Synod elects a new bishop from the diaspora, the candidate must be approved by Rome.

Actually, the approval is required only if the candidate is a new bishop (i.e., newly promoted from the presbyterate). If the new bishop is already a bishop (i.e., merely being transferred, or promoted from an auxiliary or co-adjutor position), the Pope is merely informed. This happened recently with the Melkites (or Ukrainians?) in Canada. The Synod transferred a bishop into a vacant eparchial seat. One of the Curial Congregations cried "foul! You didn't get approval" The Synod held its ground, and the matter very quickly went away. The Synod knew its rights. That's what I keep saying. Our Churches really have a lot more say on things according to our canons than we think, or pretend. Our bishops just have to exercise their rights, and not let these curial congregations or other Latin authorities push us around. Historically, the Pope will be on our side.

The Synod cannot ordain him on its own authority.

Actually, the Synod does indeed ordain on its own authority. I understand what you are getting at - you feel that since they cannot select the candidate without the Pope's input, then that must mean they are not ordaining on their own authority. But the authority to ordain is a completely different matter from selecting a candidate. The authority to ordain does not come from the Pope, but is inherent in the Synod.

Also keep in mind that it is not the Pope that grants the new bishop his faculties, but rather the Patriarch (in Synod), or other head bishop (if the bishop is a member of a non-patriarchal sui juris Church). A lot of non-Catholics like to spread the baseless gossip that the Pope is the be-all and end-all of the Catholic Church, no doubt reinforced by the erroneous pretensions of Absolutist Petrine advocates, but this is simply not the way it is (or, from the perspective of others, not the way it is SUPPOSED to be according to the teaching and canons of the Catholic Church).

Lastly, I need to point out that this issue of selecting new bishops is specifically not one of the matters that the Middle East Synod felt they needed to have more authority over. They did mention the issue of the election of bishops in their propositions, but as an issue separate from the request that they have more authority in the diaspora. Their only concern regarding the election of bishops was that it must be a speedier process. I think given the "balance of powers" in the election of new bishops (as explained in the previous several paragraphs), our hierarchs are satisfied with the way things are - though indeed they want things to go faster.

CONTINUED

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

No. Even though some bishops have found quasi-loopholes, and at least one other has directly defied it, the infamous Cum data fuerit is alive and well.

I have to seriously question this. Cum data fuerit was a time-dependant directive. That is why it had to be renewed twice. The decree last expired in 1949, and was not renewed. There is currently no absolute canonical impediment for the ordination of married men for the sui juris Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches in the traditionally Latin lands. There is a condition for one sui juris Church, the Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh, according to an agreement with the Holy See in 1999, whereby ordination of married men in their Church is on a case by case basis approved by Rome. But no such condition exists for any other sui juris Church of which I am aware. The only impediment that could possibly exist is moral - it is outlined in Canon 84 of the EEOC. The canon requires that for the sake of peace between the Churches, any legislation done by one sui juris Church for its members who are in the traditional territory of another sui juris Church must first discuss the matter with the hierarchy of the territorial sui juris Church.

I think a lot of lay Eastern and Oriental Catholics have an excessive and unhealthy second-class mentality, which causes them to find or even look for the boogeyman of Roman tyranny where there is none. I certainly do understand and appreciate that this can be the case for cradle Easterns and Orientals. Forgive me if I seem insensitive. I am not a cradle Oriental Catholic, and have come into the Catholic Church with a different - perhaps a fresh - perspective. Part of me wants to apologize for that, and part of me thinks that perhaps the perspective I bring as a new Catholic is needed, and can help my fellow non-Latins in their struggles to be Catholic.

Blessings,
Marduk

[mardukm]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Perhaps the Vatican can review its canon laws with respect to these matters with the EC Churches and come to a resolution that better respects the EC Churches and their traditions.

This would go much further by way of ecumenical outreach than the Vatican's penchant for politicking with the Moscow Patriarchate behind the backs of EC's.

Agreed! I wish I could sit on that committee. Perhaps as a Patriarch of your own sui juris Church, you can pull some strings?

Blessings,
Marduk

[Aramis]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

With a Catholicos-Patriarch, they would be directly under him and answerable to him.

Catholic Canon Law makes no such distinction. The Catholicos-Patriarchs are canonical patriarchs, and the Indian Catholicosi are canonically Major Archbishops.

In both cases, the traditional territory limit is imposed by the CCEO; the exceptions (if any) are not due to the Catholicos title, but the specific treaty of reunion.

[Vico]

Marduk, have you read the Melkite site? There Fr. Francis Marini J.D., J.C.O.D. writes (Sophia, 2001):

"However, the present Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches distinguishes between the powers of the Patriarch and Synod of Bishops inside the patriarchal territory and outside of it; and it expressly states that their powers are exercised validly only inside the patriarchal territory, with certain limited exceptions. The basic reality is that all laws enacted by the Synod and promulgated by the Patriarch are effective inside the patriarchal territory, but for us Melkites in the United States, the only laws that are currently effective are liturgical laws.

The reason for this distinction is that, from the very earliest times, Patriarchal power or jurisdiction has been subject to a geographical limitation. This restriction, known as the Patriarchal Territory, refers to those regions in which the proper rite of the Church is observed and in which the Patriarch has the right to establish ecclesiastical provinces, eparchies and exarchies. Only the highest authority can change the Patriarchal Territory. The Patriarchal Territory of the Melkite Patriarch is Antioch, All the East, Alexandria and Jerusalem."

http://www.melkite.org/sa34.htm

Fr. Francis Marini is also the editor of: Comparative Sacramental Discipline In The CCEO And CIC (Canon Law Society of America, 2003).

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

Originally Posted by Vico

Marduk, have you read the Melkite site? There Fr. Francis Marini J.D., J.C.O.D. writes (Sophia, 2001):

"However, the present Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches distinguishes between the powers of the Patriarch and Synod of Bishops inside the patriarchal territory and outside of it; and it expressly states that their powers are exercised validly only inside the patriarchal territory, with certain limited exceptions. The basic reality is that all laws enacted by the Synod and promulgated by the Patriarch are effective inside the patriarchal territory, but for us Melkites in the United States, the only laws that are currently effective are liturgical laws.

The reason for this distinction is that, from the very earliest times, Patriarchal power or jurisdiction has been subject to a geographical limitation. This restriction, known as the Patriarchal Territory, refers to those regions in which the proper rite of the Church is observed and in which the Patriarch has the right to establish ecclesiastical provinces, eparchies and exarchies. Only the highest authority can change the Patriarchal Territory. The Patriarchal Territory of the Melkite Patriarch is Antioch, All the East, Alexandria and Jerusalem."

http://www.melkite.org/sa34.htm

Fr. Francis Marini is also the editor of: Comparative Sacramental Discipline In The CCEO And CIC (Canon Law Society of America, 2003).

I understand that, but the author only seems to be talking about territorial jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction.

The author does not take into account Canon 150, Section 3, which states that the laws of the Patriarchal Church in its territory can be effective in an eparchy established outside that territory according to the decision of the local bishop of that same Patriarchal Church.

However, I still think that whether or not a bishop outside the traditional territory of a Patirarchate is under the omophor of his Patriarch is a totally separate issue (and the answer to that is "YES").

Blessings,
Marduk